Delhi High Court
Birpal Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation & ... on 21 December, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11891/2016
Date of decision: 21st December, 2016
BIRPAL SINGH .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kishore Kumar Patil, Advocates.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
Standing Counsel with Mr. Rizwan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Having heard the counsel for the petitioner-Birpal Singh, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
2. The petitioner was working as a Driver in respondent No. 1-Delhi
Transport Corporation and had retired on 31st January, 2012 after attaining
the age of 55 years. As per policy dated 4-7th October, 1963, amended vide
letter dated 30th June, 1998, it was decided by the respondent-Corporation
that Drivers could be allowed to work up to the age of 60 years, subject to
medical fitness.
3. The petitioner was examined by a medical board on 29th December,
2012, who vide their opinion dated 13th December, 2012, had declared the
petitioner as "unfit" on account of restrictive movement of his left shoulder.
4. The petitioner had then filed OA No.1840/2012, relying upon report
dated 12th January, 2012 from the Swami Dayanand Hospital, Dilshad
Garden, Shahdara, Delhi. This OA was disposed of vide order dated 10th
July, 2013, directing that the respondent-Corporation would constitute
another medical board.
5. Consequently, the petitioner had appeared before the medical board
on 12th August, 2013 and was medically examined. He was again declared
unfit to perform duty as a Driver. The report records that x-ray of the
petitioner's left shoulder was not available. However, the clinical
examination had confirmed restricted movement of the left shoulder joint.
The petitioner was, therefore, declared unfit.
6. The petitioner thereupon filed OA No.1669/2014, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order dated 20 th July, 2016 passed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. The petitioner again relied upon the medical report of the Swami
Dayanand Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi dated 2 nd September,
2013. The Tribunal noticed that the said document is an outpatient ticket
and records that the patient had restricted left shoulder movement. The OPD
prescription states that the patient had full range of movement in both
shoulders with good muscle power and no distal neurovascular deficit. A
reading of the said report would clearly indicate that the Orthopaedic
Surgeon, who had examined the petitioner, was not aware that the petitioner
was working as a Driver and the nature of job/work requires consistent and
repeated shoulder movement. The question whether the restrictive shoulder
movement would hinder and would have compromised and weakened his
reflexes/movement as required for a driver of a bus were not considered. A
driver is responsible for safety of the passengers as well as those on the
roads. Overruling the decision of the medical board in such cases requires
more affirmative and clinching evidence and proof. We would, in this
background, hesitate and not interfere with the impugned orders.
8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has examined and considered the
two opinions of the medical board constituted by the respondent
Corporation. In the first OA, the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration. The medical board after re-examining the petitioner
reaffirmed their earlier opinion that the petitioner was not fit to perform
onerous and assiduous duties as a Driver. The petitioner would be 60 years
of age in January, 2017. Directing appointment on re-examination by
another medical board would be a futile and worthless exercise.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not think that the matter requires any
interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2016
NA
